Charles Woodson MVP Talk...

[Smidgeon]

So Mike Florio on PFT added Charles Woodson to his MVP watch for the year. I think he's definitely leading the talk for DPOY, but for the MVP I just wasn't educated enough to say. So I went and looked at some MVP data since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger.

From the various organizations (Associated Press, Newspaper Enterprise Association, Maxwell Club of Philadelphia, etc) that conferred MVPs over this time period (1970-2008), there have been 65 MVPs. The Associated Press, the unofficial official designators of the MVP, have given out 40 MVPs. Of those 40, 25 have been QBs, 12 have been RBs, 1 was a kicker (Mark Moseley in 1982), and 2 were primarily defensive players: DT Alan Page in 1971 and LB Lawrence Taylor in 1986.

So before we begin the discussion, the MVP is heavily slanted towards the offensive side (37 out of 40 = 92.5%) so the odds are steep to begin with.

First, we can't really compare the stats of the previous defensive MVP winners because Page played before they tracked tackles and Woodson plays in the modern era which has rules designed to get the offenses to score points (no contact with WR after 5 yards, automatic penalties for touching the QBs, etc). Not only that, but MVPs aren't all about stats and some of their most important efforts are demeaned by a statistic. For example, Woodson's tackle for loss on 1st and goal from the 1 last night before the interception only shows up as a tackle for loss and not the key play it really was.

Second, it's been 23 years since a player other than a RB or QB won the MVP (LT in 1986).

Third, Woodson's stats this year are close to phenomenal. He ranks in the Top 10 for CBs in the following categories: all of them (combined tackles, solo tackles, sacks, passes defended, interceptions, INT TDs, INT yards, forced fumbles, fumbles recovered). He regularly shuts down the opposing teams best player and is all over the freakin' field.

Fourth, when Rod woodson won the DPOY award in 1993, his year end defensive stats were better than Charles Woodson's 3/4 year stats in three places (no stats available for passes defended): tackles by about 30, one more interception, and 13 more INT yards. They were even on sacks, INT TDs, and fumble recoveries. Charles Woodson on 3/4 year was leading in forced fumbles.

Fifth, projecting purely his stats to include 4 more games (a wasted gesture, but fun nonetheless), he would have 77 tackles, 3 sacks, 24 passes defended, 9 INTs, 3 INT TDs, and 5 forced fumbles to go along with his 1 fumble recovered and 167 INT yardage. But again, his stat line ignores how well he shuts down receivers time and again (if anyone has this data, please included it).

Sixth, I'm assuming Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Brett Favre are in the MVP discussion. I'm hoping they steal votes from each other (especially Manning and Brees since Favre had a Favre-esque game on Sunday) and make it easier for someone other than a QB or RB to actually get in the conversation.

Seventh: discuss. What do you think?

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Pipe dream, unless he starts going old school Michigan on us and returns a couple punts/kickoffs for TD's. I'd love nothing more than to see it happen, but in a year where there are 4-5 QB's having phenomenal years(one on our team) statistically there just wont be enough votes for Chuck.

[Smidgeon]

Pipe dream, unless he starts going old school Michigan on us and returns a couple punts/kickoffs for TD's. I'd love nothing more than to see it happen, but in a year where there are 4-5 QB's having phenomenal years(one on our team) statistically there just wont be enough votes for Chuck.

Maybe since as the recent years have progressed (due to the aforementioned rules emphasizing a team's ability to score points), they need to up the standards by which QBs are judged. Dan Marino's yardage record wasn't even approached for years, then within the space of two years, it's been approached 3 times (once last year and a couple this year). The TD records stood forever, then was recently broken twice. The rules have clearly impacted QB stats in such a positive manner it isn't "phenomenal" anymore.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Pipe dream, unless he starts going old school Michigan on us and returns a couple punts/kickoffs for TD's. I'd love nothing more than to see it happen, but in a year where there are 4-5 QB's having phenomenal years(one on our team) statistically there just wont be enough votes for Chuck.

Maybe since as the recent years have progressed (due to the aforementioned rules emphasizing a team's ability to score points), they need to up the standards by which QBs are judged. Dan Marino's yardage record wasn't even approached for years, then within the space of two years, it's been approached 3 times (once last year and a couple this year). The TD records stood forever, then was recently broken twice. The rules have clearly impacted QB stats in such a positive manner it isn't "phenomenal" anymore.

Sure, rule changes have had an impact, but in reality I think we are just in a "Golden Age" of quarterbacks. I mean, the people who have approached Marino's records will all probably be first ballot hall-of-famers(jury still out on Brees). Look at all the teams that struggle to even average 20ppg even with all the rule changes. Hell, some even struggle to put up 10ppg. Quarterbacking is the biggest indicator of a teams success this year.

Brees
Brady
Brentidict
Manning
Rivers
McNabb
Rodgers
Romo
Warner
Palmer

are all having great years, and it's no surprise every one of those teams is in the play-off hunt.

To a lesser extent,

Eli Manning
Joe Flacco
Matt Ryan
Kyle Orton (haha)

Have also had good years, though Eli should really be between both lists.

Then you have a ton of young guys who have shown a lot of potential to be good in this league. And Jay Cutler, the guy who just has "it".

The reason you never see a defensive player win the MVP is because the quarterback is without a doubt the single most important player on the field at any given time. When QB's are having a year like this i just can't see a D player winning it.

[Smidgeon]

I'm doing some research on the progression of QBs over the years. I'll get back to you on that data.

[HarveyWallbangers]

In some years, he'd be a candidate. However, he isn't. Not with the type of year some of the QBs are having.

[cheesner]

A kicker won? Interesting that 1982 coincides with the highest usage rate of cocaine per capita in the US.

A couple of QBs are having amazing seasons, I doubt Woodson gets any serious attention.

The problem with a CB, is his greatest stat cannot be really measured. On Thanksgiving when he shut Calvin Johnson down to only 2 catches for 10 yards is as amazing of a feat as his other big 'stat' games. That just doesn't show up in any measurealbe rating, but is no less impressive.

However, he has to be emerging as the front runner for DPOY.

[Smidgeon]

QB Peak Stats Since the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger

It wasn't until 1995 that more than 3 QBs in a given year threw for more than 4000 yards. That was repeated or bettered in 2002 then has been pretty much guaranteed since 2006. Six did it last year, and 10 are projected for this year.
1980 was the first year more than 9 QBs threw for 20 TDs in a given year. That feat was sporadic until 1995. Since 1998 there have only been two years that hasn't happened: 1999 and 2008.
1980 was also the first year more than 2 QBs threw more than 30 TDs in a given year. That wasn't repeated until 1994 at which point it was a very common occurance. Eleven did it last year, and 5 are projected for this year.
Before 1989, the high QB rating was an average of 95.6. Since 1989, the QB rating average is 105.9, and since then only in one year was the highest rating under 100.0.

2009 is projected to have 20 QBs throw for more than 3k yards, 10 QBs throw for 4k yards, 16 QBs throw for over 20 TDs, and 6 QBs have a rating over 100.0, which are all time highs in terms of occurances per year.

The QB stats have been getting progressively better. Rule changes have been put into effect year after year to emphasize the offense and make the NFL more exciting by making it easier to score points. Plus technology has made it easier to get the most out of a QB by providing more accessible tape for study, a better understanding of how the body works, focused workouts on improving QB specific play, etc, etc.

The point being is that no matter what you say about the "Golden Age of QBs", it isn't. Because these stats started increasing before any of your Golden Age QBs were in the league, it doesn't follow. It makes more sense that new emphasises of letting WRs run free without contact, holding up on QB hits, etc are contributing to better QB stats as opposed to simply better QBs overall.

I agree that some of the QBs are all time greats (Manning, Brady, Favre, etc). But the rest of that list is benefiting from rule changes as opposed to pure talent.

[Smidgeon]

The thing to take away from this:

DON'T CREDIT THE QBS FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF THE NFL! The QBs look good in light of history, but so do the average QBs. Except for one or two, nobody is rising above. Since we're used to lower QB stats, they feel like they're phenomenal. But the stats don't support that. It's part of the normal trend.

EDIT: After letting this mull over in my mind for a bit, I'm reforming my conclusion a little bit. This very well could be a Golden Age for QBs. Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers, etc are all playing outstanding football. My point is that they aren't really rising that far above as their pure stats make it seem. QBs in general are putting up much larger numbers than any time in history. That's why I think that the MVP standard for QBs should be raised.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

The thing to take away from this:

DON'T CREDIT THE QBS FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF THE NFL! The QBs look good in light of history, but so do the average QBs. Except for one or two, nobody is rising above. Since we're used to lower QB stats, they feel like they're phenomenal. But the stats don't support that. It's part of the normal trend.

EDIT: After letting this mull over in my mind for a bit, I'm reforming my conclusion a little bit. This very well could be a Golden Age for QBs. Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers, etc are all playing outstanding football. My point is that they aren't really rising that far above as their pure stats make it seem. QBs in general are putting up much larger numbers than any time in history. That's why I think that the MVP standard for QBs should be raised.

Nice stats and analysis Smidgeon. Sadly, it's all a moot point. Since we likely lack the data needed to prove or disprove the "Golden Age of QB's" theory. Rule changes have helped, science, and the other things you've mentioned have no doubt had a direct impact on better QB play. I just don't see how we can clearly define if someone is great or just benefits from everything that has happened since the late 80's/early 90's.

So when we run out of data to support our theories I have to go with my own opinion and educated guesses. I believe we are seeing some of the greatest quarterbacking this league has ever seen. The discrepancy between teams who have a good to great QB and teams who don't is simply too much to overlook.

[rbaloha1]

CW deserves to be in the discussion for MVP. Its tough to win especially if one of the qbs leads their team to an unbeaten season.

[HarveyWallbangers]

IMHO, it's between Brees and Manning. If the teams have the same record, it goes to Brees. However, it's good to see Rodgers listed.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2009/12/nfl-mvp-analysis-can-anyone-stop-saints-qb-drew-brees-now/1?csp=34sports&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomSports-TopStories+(Sports+-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=My+Yahoo

NFL MVP analysis: Can anyone stop Saints QB Drew Brees now?

With four weeks left in the NFL season, there's still a lot of time left before decisions are made on the league's MVP. USA TODAY's Sean Leahy examines the candidates who could hoist the hardware after Week 17:

Prime contenders:
-- Drew Brees, Saints QB: The spark plug to the surprising Saints had the gaudiest weekend among the contenders. His 35-for-49 for a season-high 419 yards passing powered a 33-30 comeback win at Washington. He leads the NFL with 29 TD passes and openly wondered if the Saints' success (and maybe his MVP candidacy) is being guided by destiny. This week: At Atlanta

-- Peyton Manning, Colts QB: He did nothing to hurt his candidacy in a 27-17 win last week against Tennessee. His 270 passing yards lifted him to an NFL-high 3,685 this season. Manning has never missed a start, but his value will be even more important with veteran backup Jim Sorgi placed on IR Wednesday. Rookie Curtis Painter is now his sole understudy. This week: Vs. Broncos

-- Brett Favre, Vikings QB: The 40-year-old fell back from Brees and Manning with a two-INT performance in a 30-17 loss to the Cardinals. It was one of few blemishes for Favre (who's still thrown just five INTs this year) thus far in a Vikings uniform. Don't count him out, however, if the Saints stumble and he can rally them up to catch New Orleans in the NFC standings. This week: Vs. Cincinnati.

Others to keep an eye on:
-- Aaron Rodgers, Packers QB: Favre's replacement has led his team to a four-game win streak that has put him in the MVP conversation. Bolstered by better pass protection, Rodgers has been sacked just twice in his past two games and is tied for third with 25 TD passes. He's been the leader Packers teammates credit with steadying the team through its rocky start. This week: At Chicago.

-- Chris Johnson, Titans RB: The NFL's rushing leader said he wants to be in the MVP hunt, and he's doing his best to prove it. His 113 rushing yards last weekend improved his season total to a whopping 1,509 through 12 games. The Titans' 0-6 start may have doomed his chances, however. Offensive Player of the Year might be a more realistic option. This week: Vs. St. Louis.

-- Philip Rivers, Chargers QB: His stats aren't quite as gaudy as the Brees-Manning-Favre troika. And he hasn't been on TV as much. But Rivers has led his team to the top of the AFC West with six consecutive wins. With two games on deck against the Cardinals and Bengals, he'll have a stage to jump into the upper tier. This week: At Dallas.

-- Cedric Benson, Bengals RB: A longshot for the award, Benson kept his chances alive with a 110-yard rushing performance in his return from a two-game injury break. His 969 rushing yards are a big reason the Bengals have a three-game lead in the AFC North. A test against the Vikings' stout run defense this weekend could slow his stats. This week: At Minnesota.

[Smidgeon]

I've decided that I'm not a fan of that article. The list was way too safe. The "long shot" section didn't have a single player that wasn't a RB or a QB. I would argue that there are defensive players that deserve to be on that list more than Benson, Young, or Jackson: Sharper, Allen, Woodson, etc.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

I've decided that I'm not a fan of that article. The list was way too safe. The "long shot" section didn't have a single player that wasn't a RB or a QB. I would argue that there are defensive players that deserve to be on that list more than Benson, Young, or Jackson: Sharper, Allen, Woodson, etc.

The average fan loves offense. The football purist loves defense. Sadly, we have much more of the former than the latter and then NFL knows it. Because of this, we wont see a defensive MVP for a long time IMO.

[steve823]

I've decided that I'm not a fan of that article. The list was way too safe. The "long shot" section didn't have a single player that wasn't a RB or a QB. I would argue that there are defensive players that deserve to be on that list more than Benson, Young, or Jackson: Sharper, Allen, Woodson, etc.

The average fan loves offense. The football purist loves defense. Sadly, we have much more of the former than the latter and then NFL knows it. Because of this, we wont see a defensive MVP for a long time IMO.

Agreed. It's bullshit that the NFL has become so pro-offense. The only reason they make rules to favor offense is because more points = more $$ because like you said, most fans are stupid.

On a side note if an offensive player had to win I'd vote Chris Johnson..hes had an amazing year with no QB and defenses loaded up to stop him. Plus he only fumbled once all year.

[Little Whiskey]

I'd like to add the most stat increasing change the NFL has added.

Adding Games.

[Smidgeon]

I'd like to add the most stat increasing change the NFL has added.

Adding Games.

1978 was the first season with 16 games. It was also the season that new rules were put in place giving WRs more cushion on routes. However, it was a delayed effect as it wasn't until 1980 that you really started noticing statistical increases across the board.

Conversely, when the NFL adopted a renewed emphasis on no contact after 5 yards in 2004, Payton Manning threw for 49 touchdowns that same year. It went from one QB with more than 30 TDs the previous year with 2 QBs throwing for greater than 4000 yards in 2003 to 4 QBs throwing more than 30 TDs and 5 QBs throwing more than 4000 yards.

[gbgary]

CHUCK!!

[mraynrand]

The football purist loves defense.

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

[sharpe1027]

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

I think that still says more about the team depth than the individual.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

I think that still says more about the team depth than the individual.

I don't think so. I think it has to do with the fact that QB is by far the most important position. You could pick one of the best backups in the NFL, and I'd still say the dropoff from Rodgers to that guy would be greater than Woodson to any of our backup corners. Our defense would suffer without Chuck, but an injury to a great QB is going to kill you. For proof, see Al Harris. Chuck is better, but you can compensate for injuries at almost every position--except QB.

[Smidgeon]

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

I think that still says more about the team depth than the individual.

I don't think so. I think it has to do with the fact that QB is by far the most important position. You could pick one of the best backups in the NFL, and I'd still say the dropoff from Rodgers to that guy would be greater than Woodson to any of our backup corners. Our defense would suffer without Chuck, but an injury to a great QB is going to kill you. For proof, see Al Harris. Chuck is better, but you can compensate for injuries at almost every position--except QB.

I don't disagree, but it's getting harder for me to reward a QB for simply being ahead of the curve in stats. Personally, I would put Manning above Brees in the MVP race because Manning seems to have pulled out more ridiculous wins than Brees has. To me, MVP isn't "what kind of stats do you have", but "what wins have you single handedly handed to your team". QBs all over the league are putting up amazing numbers. A small handful are putting up even more amazing numbers. The numbers shouldn't be as impressive because it isn't one or two putting up amazing numbers, it's five or six.

[Guiness]

Good thread.

It's just so slanted towards QB...because let's face it, it's near impossible to replace that player, who is so central to everything that happens on O. Hostetler aside, I guess. It's the reality of the specialist league that the NFL is. Only sport where the individual positions are so non-interchangeable. Aside from the occasional WR who might be ok as an emergency 3rd QB, a QB can't play anywhere else, and no one else can play at QB.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

The football purist loves defense.

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

Sadly, I'd put most sports writers in the average fan category.

edit: and to answer your question Rodgers. As much as the ex-lineman in me wants to shout from the roof tops that every position in football is equal, it simply isn't. The higher up you go on the football ladder the more important a great QB becomes to winning.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think so. I think it has to do with the fact that QB is by far the most important position. You could pick one of the best backups in the NFL, and I'd still say the dropoff from Rodgers to that guy would be greater than Woodson to any of our backup corners. Our defense would suffer without Chuck, but an injury to a great QB is going to kill you. For proof, see Al Harris. Chuck is better, but you can compensate for injuries at almost every position--except QB.

First off, we have a backup DB that has significant experience and would likely be starting on most teams in the league, the Al Harris example says more about T. Will, than about Harris.

This is a good discussion and you have a valid point, however, how do you explain the M. Cassels? I think the reality is that many backup QBs step in and do just fine. IMHO, QBs tend to get way more credit and more blame than they deserve. You don't need a world beater at QB to win.

It just seems to me that QBs are more of a product of the system than the other way around. Look at QBs that have moved. Many suddenly become much worse or much better, did they suddenly forget how to play, or did the just originally get more blame/credit than they deserved?

[Smidgeon]

I started thinking about this after reading PFT's recent post quoting Chicago's D-Coordinator raving about Woodson's play this year:

Theoretically, should the MVP be the most important player (i.e. the QB), the most impactful player (i.e. the one who single-handedly wins games), or the player who is playing so far above his peers that in that given year he could go to any team and make that team much better because he's performing so far above others at his position?

According to PFT, this is what Turner said about Woodson: "I don't remember the last time if ever that I've seen someone have the year that he's having. He's unbelievable. He's all over the field. He's playing corner, he's playing nickel, he's playing strong safety. He's going head-to-head on tight ends. He's making tackles, he's causing fumbles, he's intercepting balls. He is all over the place and it's unbelievable to watch."

Is there any team that Woodson wouldn't automatically make that much better? Is there any team that has anyone playing as well as him? Conversely, what's the difference Brees to Manning? Or Manning to Favre? Or Favre to Rivers? Or Rivers to Rodgers?

I guess my point here (mostly because I'm still fleshing it out in my own mind) is that the MVP should be going to the player who could make any team better. If I could even remotely argue that there are a small handful of teams that wouldn't want an MVP candidate because their player is playing just as well, then is that candidate really an MVP candidate?

This is a theoretical question, rather than a practical question because practically the award will continue to go to QBs and RBs because people love points. But should these positions continue to win the award?

[TennesseePackerBacker]

This is a theoretical question, rather than a practical question because practically the award will continue to go to QBs and RBs because people love points. But should these positions continue to win the award?

You bring up an excellent point. Woodson would make an immediate impact on all 32 teams. The same cannot be said for the other candidates. IMO other positions should begin to get more credit, but I'm no sports writer or "expert". How about punter for MVP? Shane Lechler is the one of the most unknown "weapons" in the NFL :lol: . Seriously though, maybe one day the media will pull their collective heads out of their asses and see other players make huge impacts that aren't huge impact players.

Stat lines are decieving because no matter how it is used it can be slanted towards whoever is making the arguement. Politicians do it all the time...

[Smidgeon]

This is a theoretical question, rather than a practical question because practically the award will continue to go to QBs and RBs because people love points. But should these positions continue to win the award?

You bring up an excellent point. Woodson would make an immediate impact on all 32 teams. The same cannot be said for the other candidates. IMO other positions should begin to get more credit, but I'm no sports writer or "expert". How about punter for MVP? Shane Lechler is the one of the most unknown "weapons" in the NFL :lol: . Seriously though, maybe one day the media will pull their collective heads out of their asses and see other players make huge impacts that aren't huge impact players.

Stat lines are decieving because no matter how it is used it can be slanted towards whoever is making the arguement. Politicians do it all the time...

I think stat lines are almost perfect for determining OPOY or DPOY. But MVP? That feels more like an award designed for intangibles. Sure, stats play a role, but a minor one.